DX  uc-nrlf 

6532 
M3 


lio 


tDbeJSaptistsrxrbeir 

principle,  Zbciv  prooress 
XTbeir  prospect   ::  ::  ::  :: 


1?obert  Stuart  flQacHrtbur 


Hmencan 
'    »apti0t 

publication 
J    Society 


THE  BAPTISTS 

THEIR  PRINCIPLE 
THEIR  PROGRESS 
THEIR  PROSPECT 


THE  BAPTISTS 


THEIR  PRINCIPLE 
THEIR  PROGRESS 
THEIR    PROSPECT 


By 
ROBERT  STUART  MacARTHUR 

Minister  Calvary  Baptist  Church,  New  York,  Since  May  15, 1870 

Address  Delivered  in  the  First  Baptist  Church,  Baltimore 

Md.,  on  the  Occasion  of  the  One  Hundred  and 

Twenty-fifth  Anniversary  of  Its  Founding 

November  29,  1910 


^^He  that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth 
them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me. ' '  — Jesus  Christ 


PHILADELPHIA 

AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY 

BOSTON  CHICAGO  ST.  LOUIS 

TORONTO.    CAN. 


VJ  /\    ^  ^^ 


M 


Copyright  1911  by 
A.  J.  ROWLAND,  Secretary 


Published  April,  1911 


Zbc  Baptists:  Zbcix  {principle 
XLhcit  progress,  Zhcix  prospect 


SOME  of  us  love  the  Baptist  denomination  with 
tender  affection.  We  gave  her  the  fervor  of 
youth;  we  give  her  now  the  riper  knowledge 
and  the  heartier  conviction  of  mature  years.  She  is 
radiant  in  her  queenly  beauty.  Never  did  knight  of 
heroic  days  show  more  of  chivalry  toward  the  queen 
of  his  heart  than  do  the  knights  of  the  cross  among 
us  toward  the  body  whose  name  we  bear.  To  us  the 
Baptist  denomination  is  glorious.  Her  martyr's  crown 
becomes  her  lofty  brow;  her  prison-soiled,  flame- 
charred,  and  blood-stained  robes  are  lustrous  and  glo- 
rious. Her  past  is  triumphant;  her  present  is  potent; 
her  future  is  resplendent.  Here  and  now,  as  she  is 
loyal  to  her  Lord,  we  give  her  the  love  and  loyalty  of 
our  true  hearts.  The  Baptist  who  does  not  rejoice  in 
the  heroic  history  of  his  great  denomination  must 
have  ignorance  instead  of  knowledge  in  his  head,  and 
iced  water  instead  of  red  blood  in  his  veins. 

[  5  ] 

222089 


ITbeBaptiete 


The  Baptist  Principle 

The  slogan  of  Baptists  all  through  the  centuries  has 
been:  "To  the  law  and  the  testimony."  When  God's 
word  speaks,  Baptists  may  not  be  silent;  when  God's 
word  is  silent,  Baptists  may  not  speak.  The  New 
Testament,  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice — this  is  the 
great  Baptist  principle. 

This  fundamental  principle  rules  out  human  creeds, 
as  the  ultimate  authority  of  faith  and  practice. 
Creeds  have  their  uses ;  thfey  may  be  profitably  studied. 
They  are  the  high-water  mark  to  which  theological 
thought  has  risen  at  any  given  period.  But  creeds 
made  by  men  in  one  age  may  be  remade,  or  unmade,  by 
men  in  another  age.  Every  age  must  do  its  own  think- 
ing. So  far  as  new  forms  of  statement  are  concerned, 
theology  is  a  progressive  science.  New  light  is  break- 
ing forth  constantly  from  God's  word  and  from  God's 
world.  Creeds  are  often  procrustean  beds  for  the  tor- 
ture of  theological  thinkers.  They  neither  conserve 
orthodoxy  nor  preserve  church  unity.  They  are  di- 
visive rather  than  unitive.  We  have  learned  many 
things  since  the  days  of  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Knox, 
Turretin,  Luther,  and  Calvin.  We  shall  continue  to 
learn  in  the  future  as  in  the  past.  We  are  better  able 
to  make  creeds  to-day  than  were  any  men  in  any  past 
day.  We  know  more  history,  more  archeology,  more 
philology,  and  more  theology  than  any  of  our  predeces- 

[  6  ] 


Zbciv  iPrtnciplCt  progreggt  iproapect 

sors  knew.  There  is  also  a  much  more  charitable,  fra- 
ternal, and  Christly  spirit  among  theological  thinkers 
to-day  than  there  was  in  past  centuries.  Progressive 
thinkers  cannot  be  tethered  to  the  gravestones  of  dead 
theologians. 

The,  New  Testament  adapts  itself  to  the  progress  of 
modern  thought,  as  human  creeds  do  not.  The  word 
of  God  is  the  contemporary  of  all  ages;  rightly  inter- 
preted, it  is  always  in  harmony  with  truth,  from  what- 
ever quarter  truth  comes.  Baptists^^therefore,  stand 
for  the  New  Testament  rather  than  for  creeds  made  by 
man.  Baptists  are  independent  thinkers;  they  are 
not  alarmed  by  theological  adjectives.  They  want 
the  truth,  let  it  come  as  it  may.  If  Baptists  were  to 
adopt  human  creeds,  what  creeds  would  they  select  as 
authoritative? 

Three  creeds  are  usually  considered  as  ecumenical. 
Let  us  look  at  these  creeds,  and  also  at  the  West- 
minster Confession.  There  is  space  only  to  describe 
them  with  the  utmost  brevity.  In  my  book  entitled 
*'  Current  Questions  for  Thinking  Men,"  the  historical 
creeds  are  discussed  at  length. 

The  Apostles'  Creed 

The  so-called  Apostles'  Creed,  or  Symbohtm  Apos- 
tolicum,  is  an  early  summary  of  the  Christian  faith, 
with  most  of  whose  statements  we  are  heartily  agreed. 
We  fully  appreciate  the  high  praise  which  Augustine 

[  7  ] 


Zbc  Baptiete 


gives  it,  when  he  says  regarding  it,  '' Regula  iidei 
hrevis  et  grandis;  hrevis  nuniero  verhorum,  grandis 
pondere  sententiarumf  It  is  to  be  highly  esteemed 
as  a  compendium  of  doctrine  for  its  intrinsic  worth, 
and  for  the  veneration  in  which  it  has  been  so  long 
and  so  deservedly  held  by  many  bodies  of  Christians. 
One  can  fully  agree  with  Doctor  Schafif  when  he 
speaks  of  its  sublime  simplicity,  unsurpassable  brevity, 
and  liturgical  solemnity. 

We  object,  however,  to  its  title.  It  is  not,  in  any 
natural  sense  of  the  word,  the  Apostles'  Creed;  it 
never  ought  to  have  been  called  by  this  name.  The 
apostles  never  saw  the  creed  to  which  their  name  is 
attached;  they  never  heard  of  it,  and  perhaps  would 
not  be  willing  to  indorse  it  in  all  its  parts  as  we  now 
have  it.  It  may  be  said  that  the  title  is  now  used  with 
the  understanding  that  this  creed  is  simply  a  truthful 
compend  of  apostolic  doctrine ;  that  it  sets  forth  apos- 
tolic principles  of  faith  in  God  and  in  his  revelation. 
But  the  title  was  intended  to  convey  quite  a  different 
meaning.  The  Roman  Church  still  affirms  that  its 
clauses  were  actually  contributed  by  the  apostles. 
This  church  professes  to  settle,  on  the  authority  of  a 
sermon  by  one  Augustine — certainly  not  the  great 
Augustine,  a  sermon  which  is  now  known  to  be  spu- 
rious— the  clauses  contributed  by  the  different  apos- 
tles. Thus  it  affirms :  Petrtis  dixit,  '^  Credo  in  Dcuin 
Patrem  omnipotentem."     Joannes  dixit:  "  Creatorem 

[  8  ] 


ICbeir  principle,  proQteee,  B>ro0pect 

coeli  et  terraef'  Jacobus  dixit ^  etc.  This  supposed 
authority  also  gives  the  clauses  which,  it  is  claimed, 
the  other  apostles  contributed.  To  the  historical  com- 
piler and  traditionalist,  Rufinus,  of  the  fourth  century, 
we  are  indebted  for  the  accounts  of  this  tradition.  But 
no  careful  historic  student  attaches  importance  to-day 
to  this  testimony  of  Rufinus.  His  statement  is  that 
the  apostles,  before  going  out  on  a  missionary  tour,  met 
in  Jerusalem,  and  composed  this  compend  of  doctrines 
which  they  should  preach.  But  we  know  that  neither 
the  Evangelist  Luke,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor 
any  ecclesiastical  writer,  until  a  much  later  date  than 
that  claimed  for  this  creed,  makes  mention  of  any 
assembly  for  the  purpose  of  adopting  a  creed.  We 
also  know  that  none  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  three 
centuries,  although  often  engaged  in  disputes  with 
various  heretics,  ever  endeavored  to  support  their  doc- 
trines by  referring  to  a  creed  prepared  and  promulgated 
by  the  apostles.  Not  one  of  these  Fathers  ever  pre- 
tended that  the  apostles  composed  this  creed.  The 
clause,  "  He  descended  into  hell,"  is  one  whose  origin 
is  involved  in  great  doubt,  and  whose  teachings  are 
not  accepted  by  many  devout  believers  and  profound 
scholars.  This  clause  was  doubtless  a  later  interpola- 
tion, when  various  errors  crept  into  the  church.  It 
was  not  in  the  earlier  forms  of  this  creed ;  neither  was 
the  phrase,  "  The  communion  of  saints."  We  know 
that  an  alternative  form  is  suggested  regarding  the 

[  9  ] 


Zhc  Bapti0t0 


descent  into  hell,  and  if  that  form  were  universally 
adoped  fewer  criticisms  would  be  pronounced  upon 
this  ancient  and  confessedly  beautiful  compend  of  doc- 
trine. But  it  would  be  much  better  to  omit  this  ob- 
jectionable clause.  It  adds  nothing  valuable  to  the 
thoughts  expressed  by  the  associated  clauses.  It  is 
quite  unnecessary — especially  as  the  Scripture  is 
doubtful  on  the  point — to  affirm  where  our  Lord  was 
between  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection.  The  last 
apostle  was  hundreds  of  years  in  heaven  before  this 
creed,  in  its  present  form,  w^s  promulgated.  This 
creed  was  not  admitted  at  an  early  age  into  the  liturgy. 
It  first  appeared  in  public  worship  in  the  Greek  Church 
of  Antioch.  It  was  not  introduced  generally  into  the 
Roman  Church  until  the  eleventh  century,  and  from 
that  church  it  passed  into  the  Church  of  England  at 
the  Reformation. 

The  Nicene  Creed 

To  the  Nicene  Creed,  or,  including  a  later  addition, 
Symbolum  Niceno-Constantinopolitanum,  more  se- 
rious objection  may  be  offered.  This  creed  sprang 
out  of  the  conflict,  which  began  as  early  as  the  second 
century,  regarding  the  character  of  Christ.  At  the 
later  council  at  Constantinople,  the  article  on  the  di- 
vinity of  the  Spirit  was  added.  The  words,  "  and 
from  the  Son,"  in  Latin,  ''  £lioque/'  were  added  at 
Toledo  in  589.  This  phrase  has  proved  a  prolific  source 

[  10  ] 


Itbeir  principle^  proQreeet  Iproepect 

of  controversy.  The  circumstances  attending  the 
origin  of  this  creed  tend  greatly  to  lessen  the  authority 
of  its  statements.  In  the  council  held,  in  325,  at  Nicsea 
in  Bithynia — this  place  is  now  a  Turkish  village,  of 
fifteen  hundred  population,  and  is  called  Isnik — sum- 
moned by  Constantine,  there  were  three  distinct  par- 
ties :  the  Athanasian,  the  Eusebian,  and  the  Arian.^  The 
Arian,  or  heretical  party,  was  comparatively  few  in 
numbers ;  and  Arius,  being  only  a  presbyter,  had  prop- 
erly no  seat  in  the  conclave  but  was  present  by  com- 
mand of  Constantine.  The  direct  influence  of  the 
Arian  party  was  not  great  at  any  time  in  the  council, 
but  its  indirect  influence,  through  the  Eusebian  or  mid- 
dle party,  was  marked  at  every  stage  of  the  discussion. 
For  a  time  this  middle  party  was  able  to  hold  the  or- 
thodox, or  Athanasian  party,  with  a  firm  grasp.  The 
chief  purpose  of  Constantine  in  calling  this  council  was 
to  establish  throughout  his  dominions  unity  in  forms 
of  faith  and  worship. 

We  all  admit  that  there  was  much  that  was  grand 
and  imposing  in  the  Nicene  Council.     But  we  know 

1  There  were  at  this  time  about  eighteen  hundred  bishops  in  the  empire ;  of  this 
number,  three  hundred  and  eighteen,  besides  presbyters  and  acolytes,  were  present. 
Hosius,  of  Cordova,  was  the  ablest  of  the  eight  bishops  from  the  West.  Sylvester,  | 
Bishop  of  Rome,  was  unable  to  be  present  because  of  the  infirmities  of  age  ;  he  was 
represented  by  two  presbyters.  It  was  really  an  Eastern  council.  The  creed  was 
written  in  Greek.  Its  atmosphere  was  Oriental.  It  is  still  recited  by  the  Russian 
emperor  at  his  coronation.  The  first  place  in  rank,  though  not  in  intellectual  power, 
was  given  to  the  aged  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  He,  alone,  was  named  "Papa,"  or 
Pope.  History  then  knew  nothing  of  the  phrase,  "Pope  of  Rome,"  but  Pope  of 
Alexandria  was  a  familiar  title. 

[  II  ] 


^beBaptiete 


also  that  at  times  this  council  conducted  itself  in  a 
manner  altogether  unbecoming  a  solemn  assembly  of 
Christian  men,  met  for  a  high  and  holy  purpose. 
Drafts  of  creeds  were  torn  in  pieces  by  the  excited  as- 
sembly, and  the  ''  Lord  of  misrule "  reigned  occa- 
sionally with  uninterrupted  sway.  The  council  was 
at  times  more  like  a  ward  caucus  of  average  politicians 
than  like  a  body  of  grave  and  reverent  men.  Even  the 
presence  of  soldiers  as  police  officers  could  not  pre- 
vent shameful  outbreaks. 

The  Nicene  Creed  did  not  settle  the  contradictory 
opinions  in  the  church  at  that  time.  Especially  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  immediately  disputed 
by  the  Arians,  the  semi-Arians,  and  the  Eusebians. 

The  Athanasian  Creed 

The  so-called  Athanasian  Creed,  or  the  ''  Symbolum 
Quicunque/'  as  it  is  often  called,  is  known  as  one  of 
the  three  great  creeds  of  the  church ;  but  no  intelligent 
student  now  supposes  that  it  was  prepared  by  Athana- 
sius,  the  famous  father  of  the  fourth  century,  whose 
name  it  bears.  He  himself  nowhere  mentions  it  in  any 
of  the  older  manuscripts  of  his  works ;  neither  do  any 
of  his  contemporaries  or  writers  immediately  follow- 
ing him.  A  careful  examination  of  its  contents  shows 
that  it  could  not  have  been  written  by  him,  as  it  omits 
points  which  were  vital  in  his  time.  It  was  written 
in  Latin  as  its  original  language,  and  Athanasius  wrote 

[    12    ] 


ICbeir  principle,  progreae,  proepect 

in  Greek.  It  was  unknown  in  the  Greek  Church  until 
about  the  year  looo.  The  Greek  Church  rejected  it 
because  it  teaches  the  double  procession  of  the  Spirit. 
As  it  is  rejected  by  this  church  it  ought  not  to  be 
called  ecumenical.  We  do  not  know  who  was  its 
author;  probably  its  authorship  will  never  be  known. 
It  has  been  attributed  to  many  countries  and  writers, 
but  no  authoritative  statement  can  be  made.  Promi- 
nent men  of  the  Church  of  England,  while  adopting  the 
creed  as  a  w^hole,  strongly  disapprove  of  its  "  damna- 
tory clauses."  These  clauses  are  quite  shocking  in 
their  severity  and  assumption;  indeed,  they  are  little 
less  than  blasphemous.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how 
uninspired  men  dare  so  pronounce  condemnation  upon 
their  fellow-men.  Rather  than  be  obliged  to  recite 
such  a  creed,  affirming  that  every  one  who  does  not 
keep  whole  and  undefiled  all  the  tenets  of  this  creed, 
shall,  without  doubt,  perish  everlastingly,  many  ex- 
cellent Christian  men  would  become  open  infidels; 
indeed,  the  tendency  of  such  creeds  is  to  multiply  un- 
believers. The  thirteen  special  days  on  which  this 
creed  is  appointed  to  be  recited  in  the  Anglican  Church 
are  called  *'  damnation  days."  It  has  been  facetiously 
called  "  The  Anathemasian  Creed." 

The  points  of  dispute  at  that  time  between  the  Atha- 
nasians  and  the  Arians  do  not  occur  in  this  creed ;  this 
is  an  omission  utterly  inexplicable,  were  the  creed  com- 
posed by  Athanasius.     Its  style,  as  already  suggested, 

[  13  ] 


Z\)c  Bapti0t6 


is  that  of  a  Latin  and  not  of  a  Greek  writer.  To  give 
it  the  title  "  Athanasian  "  is  a  pious  fraud.  To  name 
this  creed  after  Athanasius  clearly  shows  a  purpose  to 
deceive;  this  purpose  is  in  line  with  that  which  led 
to  the  "  False  Decretals  "  and  the  "  Donation  of  Con- 
stantine." 

This  creed  is  left  out  of  the  service  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  America.  Our  Episcopal  friends 
are  to  be  congratulated  on  this  omission.  The  Conven- 
tion of  1785  expunged  both  the  Athanasian  and  Nicene 
Creeds  from  the  proposed  Book  of  Common  Prayer; 
but  the  bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church  refused  to  con- 
secrate the  American  bishops  unless  both  creeds  were 
retained.  In  October,  1786,  another  convention  was 
held  in  Wilmington,  Del.  At  this  convention  the  Ni- 
cene Creed  was  admitted,  but  the  Athanasian  Creed 
was  rejected.  Bishop  White  informs  us,  that  had  the 
Athanasian  Creed  been  retained  he  would  never  read 
it  in  his  church.  Many  men  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land would  gladly  omit  this  creed  if  they  dared.  It  is 
known  that  rectors  who  do  not  believe  it,  but  are 
obliged  to  recite  it,  in  some  cases  simply  mumble  it. 
Such  a  procedure  is  both  laughable  and  pitiable. 

Later  Creeds 

There  is  not  time  to  discuss  the  Lutheran,  the  Cal- 
vinistic  or  Reformed,  nor  the  Anglican,  or  Thirty-Nine 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  nor  many  other 

[  14  ] 


gbetr  iPrtnctplCt  progregg,  progpect 

Confessions  which  came  into  being  in  connection  with 
the  period  of  the  Reformation.  The  Westminster  Con- 
fession, however,  is  worthy  of  special  mention.  It 
was  the  result  of  the  great  Puritan  excitements  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  The  Long  Parliament,  in  1640, 
set  itself  to  consider  the  question  of  the  reformation  of 
religion.  On  November  23,  1641,  ''  The  Famous 
Remonstrance,"  suggesting  the  calling  of  a  synod  to 
settle  the  peace  and  good  government  of  the  church 
was  passed.  Out  of  this  proposal  came  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  The  ordinance  summoning  it  was 
issued  June  12,  1643.  Among  the  notable  divines 
participating  in  these  great  deliberations  were  Ruther- 
ford, Gillespie,  Henderson,  Lightfoot,  Coleman,  and 
Selden. 

The  sittings  began  in  1643  ^^^  continued  until  Feb- 
ruary 22,  1649;  ^^^  during  this  period  of  nearly  six 
years  there  were  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
three  sessions.  In  1643  ^^e  Assembly,  through  the 
influence  of  Doctor  Lightfoot,  voted,  by  a  majority  of 
one,  against  giving  the  choice  as  between  baptism  or 
rantism — baptism  being  immersion  and  rantism  sprink- 
ling ;  and,  in  the  year  following,  Parliament  sanctioned 
their  decision  and  decreed  that  sprinkling  should  be_ 
legal  baptisjTi.  The  Westminster  Confession  is  re- 
tlnarkabie  for  its  rhetorical  skill,  for  its  scholarly 
breadth,  and  for  its  Christian  devotion.  Our  Presby- 
terian brethren,  in  my  judgment,  ought  not  to  attempt 

[  15  ] 


Z\)c  Bapti9t0 


a  revision  of  this  historic  Confession;  it  ought  to  be 
left  intact  as  a  monument  of  theological  thought  in  its 
day.  Let  the  Presbyterian  Church,  if  it  must  have  a 
Confession,  make  a  new  one,  and  not  attempt  to  re- 
model this  historic  document.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  it  was  a  human  parliament  and  not  the  word  oL 
God  which  was,  in  this  case,  the  ultimate  authority  re- 
garding baptism. 

Baptists  find  it  easier  to  interpret  the  New  Testa- 
ment, on  which  creeds  are  supposed  to  be  founded,  than 
to  interpret  the  creeds.  Creeds  do  not  conserve  ortho- 
doxy. The  two  Churches  which  have  recently  had 
most  painful  trials  for  heresy  are  Churches  with  long 
and  supposedly  strong  creeds.  ^  Baptists,  without  a 
creed  in_the  technical  sense  of  the  term,  are  more 
nearly  a  unit  in  faith  and  practice  than  any  denomina- 
tion in  our  country  to-day.  Baptists  thus  believe  that 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  supreme  authority  in  religious 
faith  and  practice.  Some  denominations,  as  we  have 
seen,  regard  creeds  and  councils  as  infallible  standards. 
Baptists  care  nothing  for  the  authority  of  "  the 
Fathers,"  unless  their  teaching  agrees  with  Scripture; 
past  fathers  and  grandfathers,  Baptists  go  to  the  apos- 
tles and  to  Christ.  The  best  campaign  document  of 
the  Baptists  is  the  Bible — the  most  widely  circulated 
and  the  most  authoritative  book  in  the  world. 

Because  Baptists  accept  the  word  of  God  as  their 
rule  of  faith,  theyjreJ££t^Q-c ailed  infant  baptism.    It  is 

[   i6  ] 


Z\)civ  principle,  iProQteee,  proepect 

here  boldly  affirmed  that  there  is  not  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment a  single  command  for,  or  example  of,  infant 
baptism.  If  there  were  even  one  it  could  be  found. 
So-called  infant  baptism  is  purely  a  human  appoint- 
ment. This  statement  is  fully  supported  by  learned 
commentators,  church  historians,  and  many  other 
scholars,  although  they  are  not  Baptists,  but  who  ^^^ 
speak  as  scholars  rather  than  as  churchmen.  Doctor 
Wall,  of  the  English  Church,  who  wrote  the  "  History 
of  Infant  Baptism,"  says :  "  Among  all  the  persons 
that  are  recorded  as  baptized  by  the  apostles,  there  is 
no  express  mention  of  any  infants."  .Luther  says: 
"  It  cannot  be  proved  by  the  sacred  Scriptures  that 
infant  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ,  or  begun  by 
the  first  Christians  after  the  apostles."  Neander,  the 
great  church  historian,  says :  "  We  have  all  reason  for 
not  deriving  infant  baptism  from  apostolic  institution." 
Professor  Lobegott  Lange  says :  "  All  attempts  to 
make  out  infant  baptism  from  the  New  Testament 
fail.  It  is  totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic 
age  and  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament." He  was  professor  at  Jena  for  many  years;  he 
is  a  voluminous  author,  having  written  more  than  a 
dozen  books ;  two  of  his  books  are  entitled,  "  History 
of  Protestantism "  and  "  Infant  Baptism."  Doctor 
Hanna,  author  of  a  life  of  Christ,  says :  "  Scripture 
knows  nothing  of  the  baptism  of  infants."  This  quo- 
tation is  from  his  article  in  the  "  North  British  Re- 

[  17  ] 


Zt)c  Bapti0t0 


view,"  May,  1852.  A  great  number  of  other  writers 
from  the  ranks, of  scholars  and  divines  have  borne 
similar  testimony,  which  could  be  cited  to  the  same 
effect.  But,  on  this  specific  point,  let  these  authorities 
suffice. 

We  know  how  and  when  infant  baptism  arose.  Into 
the  church,  at  an  early  date,  crept  the  deadly  error  of 
baptismal  regeneration;  it  was  believed  that,  if  chil- 
dren were  not  baptized,  they  would  be  lost;  it  was  be- 
lieved that  baptism  had  a  sanctifying,  a  saving  power ; 
that 'by  baptism  sins  were  actually  washed  away,  and 
the  soul  by  it  was  fitted  for  heaven.  Thus  the  sick 
were  thought  to  be  prepared  for  death,  and  salvation 
secured  by  its  efficacy.  Anxious  parents,  therefore, 
desired  their  children  to  receive  baptism  to  secure  them 
against  the  perils  of  perdition.  Such  was  the  error  of 
a  superstitious  age.  Hence  arose  infant  baptism,  as 
one  of  the  many  perversions  which  early  corrupted  the 
doctrines  and  ordinances  of  Christianity. 

Jnfant  baptism  is  not  a  beautiful  ceremony;  it  is 
rather  the  historical  embodiment  of  a  repellent  super- 
stition. The  whole  meaning  of  the  ceremony  is  that, 
unless  certain  drops  of  water  are  sprinkled  on  the 
babe's  brow,  that  guiltless  little  creature  if  it  should 
die  would  go  down  to  the  darkness  of  eternal  despair. 
This  is  a  superstition  akin  to  that  of  "  extreme  unc- 
tion " — the  one  rite  applied  to  unconscious  babes,  the 
other  often  to  unconscious  men  and  women.     Such 

[   18  ] 


JLbciv  principle,  progreea,  Biroepect 

superstitions  naturally  drive  thoughtful  men  into  in- 
fidelity. Who  dares,  even  in  symbol,  teach  so  horrible 
a  doctrine  as  the  damnation  of  non-elect  and  unbap- 
tized  babes?  How  can  a  few  drops  of  water,  or  an 
ocean,  change  the  child's  relations  to  God?  In  any 
case,  the  child  has  no  more  penal  sin,  no  more  per- 
sonal guilt  than  a  rose  or  a  snowflake.  The  mere 
statement  of  such  a  doctrine  ought  to  end  it. 

The  doctrine  that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  was 
first  taught  by  the  Baptists.  ThexJield  that  not  only  an 
adult  believer  would  be  saved,  though  he  died  without 
baptism,  but  that  all  dying  in  infancy  were  saved.  This 
doctrine  continually  appears  in  the  charges  against 
Baptists  who  were  put  to  death  for  their  faith.  For 
instance,  Henry  Craut,  Justus  Mueller,  and  John  Peis- 
ker  were  beheaded  at  Jena,  in  1536,  not  by  Roman 
Catholics,  but  by  their  Protestant  brethren,  the  Luther- 
ans. Among  their  announced  views  was  the  doctrine 
that  "  all  infants,  even  those  of  Turks,  Gentiles,  and 
Hebrews  are  saved  without  baptism."  The  first  time 
this  doctrine  appears  in  a  non-Baptist  creed  it  is  men- 
tioned only  to  be  condemned.  The  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, of  1530,  says:  '^ Damnant  Anahaptistas ,  qui  im- 
probant  baptismum  puerorum  et  aMrmant  pueros  sine 
baptism 0  salvos  fieri " — "  They  (the  churches  putting 
forth  this  creed)  condemn  the  Anabaptists  (a  nickname 
of  the  Baptists)  who  reject  the  baptism  of  children, 
and  declare  that  children  are  saved  without  baptism." 

[  19  ] 


?i;beBapti6t0 


I  again  unhesitatingly  assert  that  there  is  not  in  the 
New  Testament  a  single  command  for  or  example  of 
infant  baptism.  If  there  were  it  could  easily  be  found ; 
but  no  one  has  yet  made  this  discovery.  How  can  men 
who  adopt  the  famous  dictum  of  Chillingworth,  "  The 
Bible,  and  the  Bible  only,  the  religion  of  Protestants," 
practise  infant  baptism?  In  so  doing,  they  at  once 
depart  from  their  fundamental  principle;  they  cannot 
successfully  antagonize  the  "  churchianity  "  and  tradi- 
tionalism of  the  Church  of  Rome.  If  infants  have  a 
right  to  baptism,  have  they  not  also  a  right  to  com- 
1  munion?  They  certainly  are  as  worthy  to  receive  the 
j  Lord's  Supper  as  the  Lord's  baptism.  In  the  works  of 
Cyprian,  we  read  of  the  placing  of  the  sacramental 
bread  in  the  toothless  mouths  of  babes.  This  is  still 
the  practice  in  the  Greek  Church,  as  I  observed  in 
Russia.  Those  who  practise  infant  baptism  are  il- 
logical in  refusing  communion  to  babes.  There  is  no 
Scripture  authority  in  either  case. 

I  have  already  shown  how  the  idea  that  children 
dying  without  baptism  would  be  lost  led  to  the  origin 
of  the  practice.  The  idea  that  baptism  was  necessary 
to  salvation  led  also  to  the  substitution  of  rantism, 
sprinkling,  or  affusion,  pouring,  for  baptism.  It  was 
because  there  had  arisen  in  the  church  this  supersti- 
tious idea  that  water  baptism  was  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. When,  therefore,  a  man  was  converted  on  a 
dying  bed,  or  in  prison,  when  baptism  was  perhaps  out 

[    20    ] 


ICbcir  principle,  prosreaet  proepect 

of  the  question,  affusion,  pouring,  or  rantism,  sprink- 
ling, was  resorted  to  as  a  substitute  for  baptism. 
These  were  not  considered  regular  baptisms,  but  were 
by  some  deemed  allowable  substitutes  when  the  pre- 
scribed act  was  out  of  the  question.  Pouring  and 
sprinkling  were  at  first  used  only  in  cases  of  necessity ; 
but  their  superior  convenience  led  to  their  being  em- 
ployed more  and  more,  till,  in  the  course  of  ages  they, 
in  Western  Europe,  largely  supplanted  baptism.  In 
the  Greek  Church,  however,  immersion,  baptism,  is 
still  preserved.  It  continued  the  ordinary  baptism  of 
the  church  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  as  Dean  Stanley 
has  affirmed.  It  was  the  practice  in  England  down  to 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  The  Anglican  prayer  book  still 
directs  that  the  priest,  naming  the  child,  "  shall  dip  it 
in  the  water  discreetly  and  warily  " ;  adding,  however, 
that  if  the  parents  "  shall  certify  that  the  child  is  weak, 
it  shall  suffice  to  pour  water  upon  it."  No  "  priest " 
of  the  Church  of  England  has  any  right  to  this  day  to 
sprinkle  or  pour  water  upon  a  babe,  unless  the  parents 
certify  to  its  delicate  health;  it  would  seem  as  if  the 
great  majority  of  children  in  that  Church  are  in  feeble 
physical  condition.  The  rubric  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  the  United  States  of  America,  directs 
that  the  minister  "  shall  dip  it  in  the  water  discreetly, 
or  shall  pour  water  upon  it,"  not  positively  prescrib- 
ing immersion,  but  giving  it  the  preference  of  a  prior 
mention.     The  late  Doctor  Ewer,  of  New  York,  al- 

[    21     ] 


^be  Bapti0t6 


ways  baptized  the  babes ;  he  would  not  practise  pouring 
or  sprinkling.  The  same  is  true  of  other  clergymen 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who  are  advocating  a  return 
to  the  proper  act  of  baptism. 

Baptists  hold  that  only  intelligent  believers,  and  not 
unconscious  babes,  are,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, proper  subjects  of  baptism;  they  also  hold  that 
only  immersion,  and  not  sprinkling  or  pouring,  is  bap- 
tism. They  affirm  that  this  is  the  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament  as  interpreted  by  unlettered  Christians,  and 
that  it  is  also  the  teaching  of  the  best  scholarship  of  all 
centuries  and  countries.  On  no  one  point  of  learning 
is  the  scholarship  of  the  world  so  nearly  a  unit.  It 
would  be  easy  to  occupy  all  the  time  properly  given  to 
this  address  in  quotations  from  learned  authors  of  all 
churches,  centuries,  and  countries  in  support  of  the 
Baptist  position.  A  few  authorities  may  suffice  for 
this  occasion.  Chrysostom,  A.  D.  398,  says :  "  To  be 
baptized  and  plunged  in  the  water,  and  then  to  emerge 
or  rise  again,  is  a  symbol  of  our  descent  into  the  grave 
and  our  ascent  out  of  it."  Luther  says :  "  The  term 
'  baptism  '  is  Greek ;  in  Latin  it  may  be  translated  '  im- 
mersion,' since  we  immerse  anything  into  the  water, 
that  the  whole  may  be  covered  with  water."  Melanch- 
thon  says :  "  Baptism  is  *  immersion '  into  water, 
which  is  made  with  this  admirable  benediction."  Cal- 
vin says :  "  The  word  baptize  signifies  to  '  immerse  '  ; 
and  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 

[  22  ] 


JTbeir  principle,  Iprogree^,  iproapect 

ancient  church."  Turretin  says :  "  The  word  baptism 
is  of  Greek  origin,  which  signifies  to  baptize,  to  dip 
into,  to  '  immerse.'  "  John  Wesley  says :  "  Buried  with 
Him,  alluding  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by 
immersion." 

Presbyterian,  Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  Roman,  and 
other  theologians  so  constantly  add  their  testimony, 
that  one  is  embarrassed  by  the  richness  of  the  material 
available.  These  authorities  are  not  Baptists;  they 
give  their  testimony  not  as  denominationalists,  but  as 
scholars. 

*'  We  cannot  deny  that  the  first  institution  of  bap- 
tism considered  it  immersion  and  not  sprinkling " 
(Keckerman,  German  Presbyterian).  "  Immersion  and 
not  sprinkling,  was  unquestionably  the  original  form. 
This  is  shown  by  the  very  meaning  of  the  words  hap- 
tizo,  haptisma,  and  haptismos,  used  to  designate  "the 
rite"  (Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  in  "Hist.  Apos.  Ch.,"  p.  568). 
Doctor  Schaff  was  a  professor  in  the  Union  Theologi- 
cal Seminary,  Xew  York.  Doctor  Paine,  professor  of 
church  history  in  Bangor  (Maine)  Seminary  (Congre- 
gationalist),  on  being  arraigned  by  some  of  his  less- 
informed  brethren,  for  admitting  that  the  primitive 
baptism  was  immersion,  said:  "The  testimony  (for 
immersion)  is  simple  and  decisive.  No  matter  of 
church  history  is  clearer.  The  evidence  is  all  one  way, 
and  all  church  historians  of  any  repute  agree  in  ac- 
cepting it.  It  is  a  point  on  which  ancient,  medieval,  and 

[  23  ] 


Zbc  Bapti0t0 


modern  historians  alike,  Catholic,  Protestant,  Luther- 
an, and  Calvinistic  have  no  controversy."  Dean  Stan- 
ley says :  "  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  original 
form  of  baptism — the  very  meaning  of  the  word — was 
complete  immersion  in  the  deep  baptismal  waters." 
He  also  speaks,  as  already  intimated,  of  immersion  as 
"  the  primitive,  apostolical,  and,  until  the  thirteenth 
century,  the  universal  mode  of  baptism,  which  is  still 
retained  throughout  the  Eastern  churches,  and  which 
is  still  in  our  own  church  (the  Church  of  England)  as 
positively  enjoined  in  theory  as  it  is  universally  neg- 
lected in  practice."  He  also  adds  that,  "  The  change 
from  immersion  to  sprinkling  has  set  aside  the  larger 
part  of  the  apostolic  language  regarding  baptism." 
Doctor  Schaff,  in  addition  to  the  quotation  already 
made  from  him,  says :  "  The  baptism  of  Christ  in  the 
Jordan,  and  the  illustrations  of  baptism  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  are  all  in  favor  of  immersion,  rather 
than  of  sprinkling,  as  is  freely  admitted  by  the  best 
exegetes.  Catholics  and  Protestants,  English  and  Ger- 
man." Prof.  George  P.  Fisher,  of  the  Yale  Divinity 
School,  speaks  with  equal  explicitness,  when  he  says : 
"  Baptism,  it  is  now  generally  agreed  among  scholars, 
was  commonly  administered  by  immersion."  All 
scholars  are  agreed  that  Professor  Harnack,  of  Ber- 
lin, is  one  of  the  most  brilliant,  as  he  is  one  of  the  latest 
and  most  authoritative  investigators  of  early  church 
history;  these  are  his  recent  words :  "  '  Baptize  in  '  un- 

[  24  ] 


XTbeir  principle,  prosreee,  iproepect 

doubtedly  signifies  immersion.  No  proof  can  be  found 
that  it  signifies  anything  else  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  in  the  most  ancient  Christian  literature." 

Here  is  what  some  Catholic  authorities  say,  among 
them  the  great  Bishop  Bossuet,  of  France :  "It  is  a  fact 
most  certainly  avowed  in  the  Reformation,  although 
some  will  cavil  at  it,  that  baptism  was  instituted  by 
immersing  the  whole  body  into  water;  that  Jesus 
Christ  received  it  so,  and  caused  it  to  be  so  given  by 
his  apostles ;  that  the  Scripture  knows  no  other  baptism 
than  this ;  that  antiquity  so  understood  and  practised  it ; 
that  the  word  itself  implies  it,  to  baptize  being  the  same 
as  to  dip ;  this  fact,  I  say,  is  unanimously  acknowledged 
by  all  the  divines  of  the  Reformation,  nay,  by  the 
Reformers  themselves,  and  those  even  who  best  un- 
derstood the  Greek  language  and  the  ancient  customs, 
as  well  of  the  Jews  as  Christians;  by  Luther,  by  Me- 
lanchthon,  by  Calvin,  by  Casaubon,  by  Grotius,  by  all 
the  rest,  and  lately  even  by  Jurien,  the  most  contra- 
dictory of  all  ministers.  Nay,  Luther  has  observed 
that  the  German  word  signifying  baptism  was  derived 
from,  and  this  sacrament  is  named,  '"''  Tanf"  from 
profundity  or  depth,  because  the  baptized  were  deeply 
plunged  into  the  water"  (''Varia.  Protest,"  Vol.  II, 

p.  370)- 

Doctor  Dollinger,  the  distinguished  Roman  Catholic 
historian  and  theologian,  said :  "  At  first  Christian  bap- 
tism commonly  took  place  in  the  Jordan ;  of  course,  as 

[  25  ] 


^beJ6apti0t0 


the  church  spread  more  widely,  also  in  private  houses. 
Like  that  of  St.  John,  it  was  by  immersion  of  the  whole 
person,  which  is  the  only  meaning  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment word.  A  mere  pouring  or  sprinkling  was  never 
thought  of"  ("First  Age  of  Christ  and  Church," 
p.  318).  He  also  says  in  his  Church  History,  Vol.  H, 
p.  294 :  "  Baptism  by  immersion  continued  to  be  the 
prevailing  practice  of  the  church  as  late  as  the  four- 
teenth century." 

Cardinal  Gibbons,  the  foremost  Roman  Catholic  in 
the  United  States,  says :  "  For  several  centuries  after, 
the  establishment  of  Christianity,  baptism  was  usually 
conferred  by  immersion,  but  since  the  twelfth  century 
the  practice  of  baptism  by  affusion  has  prevailed  in  the 
Catholic  Church,  as  this  manner  is  attended  with  less 
inconvenience  than  baptism  by  immersion"  (''Faith 
of  Our  Fathers,"  p.  275). 

Baptism,  as  truly  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  teaching, 
ordinance.  It  declares,  in  a  pictorial  act,  the  believer's 
spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  In  this  re- 
spect it  is  a  creed  in  act.  The  candidate  for  baptism 
standing  beside  the  baptistery  not  only  utters  his 
"  Credo  "  in  word,  but  still  more  significantly  he  ex- 
presses it  in  act.  Luther  caught  this  idea  when  he 
said :  "  Baptism  is  a  sign  both  of  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. Being  moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those 
that  are  baptized  to  be  altogether  dipped  into  the  water, 
as  the  word  means  and  the  mystery  signifies."     So 

[  26  ] 


^beir  principle,  progreea,  proapect 

great  a  scholar  and  noble  a  man  as  Lightfoot,  the  late 
Bishop  of  Durham,  also  caught  the  true  idea  of  bap- 
tism when  he  said :  "  Baptism  is  the  grave  of  the  old 
man  and  the  birth  of  the  new;  an  image  of  the  be- 
liever's participation  both  in  the  death  and  in  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ.  As  he  sinks  beneath  the  baptismal 
waters  the  believer  buries  there  all  his  corrupt  affec- 
tions and  past  sins;  as  he  emerges  thence  he  rises  re- 
generate, quickened  to  new  hopes  and  a  new  life." 

Baptism  is  also  prophetic  of  a  believer's  physical 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  Baptism,  however, 
means  more  than  simply  the  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection of  a  believer ;  the  most  important  thing  taught 
by  baptism  is  Christ's  own  death  for  our  sins  and  his 
resurrection  for  our  justification. 

We  know  that  the  Greek  language  is  one  of  the  most 
philosophic  and  accurate  of  all  languages;  it  is  rich 
in  terms  for  the  expression  of  various  shades  of 
thought.  We  may  well  believe  that  Christ  and  his 
apostles  chose  from  the  rich  treasury  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage the  words  which  would  most  adequately  convey 
their  exact  thought  to  the  minds  of  men.  It  was  not 
the  divine  intention  that  the  New  Testament  should 
be  an  ejiigmatical  book.  Why  then  did  the  apostles 
and  the  Lord  use  always  and  only  that  one  word, 
*'''  haptizo,"  to  describe  the  act  of  baptism  ?  This  word 
is  found  eighty  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  no 
other  word  is  ever  used  to  designate  the  ordinance  of 

[  27  ] 


G;be3Bapti0t0 


baptism.  It  is  a  derivative  of  hapto.  Bapto  is  found 
three  times  in  the  New  Testament.  It  also  means  "  to 
dip."  Why  then  is  it  not  used  to  describe  baptism? 
Because  it  has  other  meanings,  and  if  it  were  used  the 
form  of  the  ordinance  would  be  open  to  misunder- 
standing. The  Greek  has  the  word,  loiio  six  times, 
meaning  to  wash  and  to  bathe ;  but  this  word  is  never 
applied  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Nipto  is  also 
found  seventeen  times,  meaning  to  wash  parts  of  the 
body;  but  this  word  is  never  used  in  commanding 
or  describing  baptism.  Breko  is  found  seven  times, 
and  means  "  to  wet,  to  moisten,"  but  is  never  used 
to  designate  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The  New 
Testament  also  has  the  word  rantizo,  which  is  used 
four  times,  and  means  "  to  sprinkle  " ;  but  this  word 
is  never  employed  to  describe  baptism,  for  the  sim- 
ple reason  that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism.  A  word 
meaning  "  to  pour  "  is  also  found  in  various  combi- 
nations; but  it  is  never  used  to  describe  baptism,  be- 
cause pouring  is  not  baptism.  There  is  also  the  word 
katharizo,  a  word  meaning  '^  to  purify,"  but  it  is  never 
used  to  signify  the  act  of  baptism.  Why  is  it  that  these 
inspired  writers  select  always  and  only  the  word  which, 
according  to  the  consensus  of  scholars  of  all  ages  and 
creeds,  means  "  to  dip  or  immerse,"  except  that  the 
act  which  they  commanded  or  described  was  a  dipping 
or  an  immersion  and  nothing  else  ?  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that,  if  Christ  and  the  apostles  had  wished  to 

[  28  ] 


JLbciv  principle,  progreee,  proepect 

teach  the  ideas  of  baptism  now  held  by  Baptists,  and 
with  all  the  resources  of  inspired  wisdom  and  of 
the  wondrously  philosophic  and  accurate  Greek  lan- 
guage at  their  command,  they  would  have  used  exactly 
the  words  which  they  did  use,  and  which  are  now 
found  on  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament.  It  may 
safely  be  said  that  if  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Spirit,  according  to  our  present  knowledge  of  the  lan- 
guages of  the  world,  had  intended  to  teach  the  ideas 
of  baptism  now  held  by  Baptists,  they  could  not  have 
used  words  which  would  make  their  meaning  plainer 
than  the  language  which  they  employed.  If  they  did 
not  wish  to  teach  the  Baptist  idea  of  this  ordinance, 
then  they  have  employed  language  which,  with  rever- 
ence be  it  said,  has  misled  the  scholars  of  the  world  in 
all  ages  of  church  history.  But  they  did  not  mislead 
the  scholarship  of  the  world;  they  did  intend  to  teach 
that  baptism  is  immersion  and  nothing  else,  and  that 
pouring  and  sprinkling  are  not  baptism,  but  a  human 
substitute  for  a  divine  ordinance.  We  ought  never  to 
say  '^baptism  by  immersion";  so  to  speak  is  to  say 
baptism  by  baptism.  This  is  unforgivable,  tautology. 
We  ought  never  to  say  "  baptism  by  sprinkling  " ;  so 
to  speak  is  to  utter  an  unpardonable  contradiction.  It 
is  saying  baptism  by  rantism. 

How  dare  men  and  women  make  light  of  an  ordi- 
nance so  sacred  as  baptism?  The  only  time  in  the  en- 
tire  New  Testament  when,  according  to  the  record,  all 

[  29  ] 


^bcBaptists 


i-y,. 


the  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  were  audibly  or  visibly 
present  was  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan. 
The  presence  of  the  Father  was  shown  by  his  audible 
voice,  the  presence  of  the  Son  was  seen  in  his  human 
form,  and  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  indicated 
by  the  coming  of  the  dove.  God  the  Father  expressed 
his  approval  of  the  obedience  of  God  the  Son  when 
he  said,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased." 

Baptists  are  sometimes  criticized  because,  it  is  said, 
they  are  sticklers  for  a  mode  of  baptism.  This  is  an 
utterly  inaccurate  statement  of  the  case.  Baptists  care 
comparatively  little  about  the  mode  of  baptism.  Per- 
sons may  be  baptized  forward  or  backward ;  they  may 
kneel  and  be  baptized,  or  they  may  stoop  and  be  bap- 
tized. All  these  modes  are  practised  in  different 
churches,  and  to  some  degree  also  in  the  Greek  Church. 
Most  Baptists,  however,  think  that  the  symbol  of 
burial  and  resurrection  is  best  illustrated  by  having  the 
candidate  baptized  backward;  but  the  mode  is  a  mat- 
ter of  comparatively  little  importance.  What  Baptists 
contend  for  is  baptism  and  not  something  else,  such  as 
pouring,  affusion,  or  sprinkling,  rantism,  or  any  other 
human  substitute  for  the  divinely  significant  and  pro- 
foundly instructive  ordinance  of  baptism. 

They  rightly  attach  great  importance  to  its  signifi- 
cant symbolism.  There  is  no  ordinance  in  the  Chris- 
tian church  so  spiritually  symbolic  as  baptism.    It  most 

[  30  ] 


^beir  principle,  prosreee,  proepect 

suggestively  and  tenderly  sets  forth  the  idea  of  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection.  The  old  man  is  dead,  and  so  is 
buried;  but  there  has  come  a  new  life  in  Christ,  and  so 
the  new  man  arises,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  has  taught  us, 
to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  It  is  a  thousand  pities  that 
so  many  of  God's  dear  people  rob  themselves,  by  their 
failure  to  obey  Christ's  command,  of  the  touchingly 
tender  and  profoundly  spiritual  lessons  which  the  or- 
dinance is  designed  to  teach.  Because  with  Baptists 
the  New  Testament  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac; 
tice,  tl;ey„..h£).lii-..that  faith  must_preqede..baptisjii;  jtJaaJL, 
only  believers  are  the  subjects  of  baptism;  and  that  the 
church  consists  of  a  regenerated  membership.  Bap- 
tjsts  do  not  believe  that  baptism  is  essential  to  salva^ 
tion,  but  they  believe  that  salvation  is  essential  to 
baptism.  They  hold  that  the  thief  on  the  cross  was 
saved  without  baptism.  The  circumstances  of  the  case 
made  obedience  to  the  command  impossible,  therefore 
the  act  was  not  obligatory  upon  him. 

It  is  urged  that  baptism  is  only  a  form.  Yes;  and 
so  a  flag  is  only  a  form,  merely  a  piece  of  bunting, 
and  yet  men  will  die  for  ifj^  The  United  States  flag 
is  a  symbol  of  the  Union,  since  it  has  a  star  for  every 
State.  When  the  great  conflict  arose,  in  1861,  it  was 
seen  in  a  moment  that  if  disunion  came  the  flag  would 
have  to  be  changed.  The  contest,  therefore,  took  the 
shape  as  to  whether  the  old  flag  should  be  retained. 
When  the  "  Star-spangled  Banner  "  was  sung,  when 

[  31  ] 


i 


^be  Bapti0t6 


the  Stars  and  Stripes  were  unfurled  to  the  breeze,  it 
meant  that  there  was  to  be  no  change  in  that  flag. 
That  great  four  years'  war  was  a  war  over  a  flag;  to 
save  the  flag  meant  to  save  the  Union.  If  the  flag  had 
been  the  French  tri-color,  or  the  Swiss  cross,  which 
could  have  been  retained  after  the  nation  was  divided, 
it  would  have  been  different.  But  the  fact  that  if  dis- 
union came  the  flag  would  have  to  be  changed,  made 
the  soldier  "  fight  for  the  flag  "  and  "  stand  for  the 
flag  "  with  tenfold  earnestness.  Perhaps  it  would  not 
be  too  much  to  say  that  the  flag  saved  the  nation.  The 
flag,  though  a  "  mere  form,"  had  a  marvelous  power, 
for  it  told  the  whole  story  of  loyalty,  of  patriotism,  and 
of  heroic  consecration. 

And  so  the  baptismal  burial  in  water,  though  a  mere 
ceremony,  sets  forth  so  strikingly  the  great  central 
truth  of  Christianity,  the  truth  that  eternal  life  comes 
through  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  that 
Baptists,  in  preserving  that  symbol,  are  doing  an  es- 
sential service  to  the  church  and  the  world. 

Separation  of  Church  and  State 

Baptists  stand  for  the  entire  separation  of  Church 
and  State.  This  is  now  an  American  doctrine;  gjjce 
it  was  exclusively  a  Baptist  doctrine.  The  right  of 
soul  liberty,  the  right  to  worship  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  conscience.  Baptists  have  always  main- 
tained. With  them  the  Bible  is  the  "  magna  charta  "  of 

[  32  ] 


^bcir  iprinciple,  proQreee,  prospect 

the  soul,  the  source  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and 
the  guide  of  the  individual  conscience.  The  Baptists 
preceded  others  in  declaring  the  true  relations  of  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  bodies,  not  because  they  were 
superior  to  other  Christians  in  their  understanding  of 
civil  principles,  but  because  they  held  an  ecclesiastical 
tenet  which  was  correct  where  others  were  in  error. 
The  condemnation  of  the  use  of  force  in  religion  was 
originally  a  Baptist  peculiarity.  Down  to  a  compara- 
tively late  date,  if  a  man  said  that  the  civil  magistrate 
should  not  interfere  in  strictly  religious  matters,  it  was 
known  that  he  was  a  Baptist.  But  this  doctrine  has 
now  extended  to  all  churches  in  our  land,  and  it  is 
rapidly  becoming  the  doctrine  of  all  Christian  coun- 
tries. Baptists  have  had  in  this  respect  a  noble  mis- 
sion, and  right  nobly  have  they  borne  its  burdens  and 
discharged  its  obligations. 

Our  Baptist  fathers  witnessed  to  these  truths  on  the 
rack  and  at  the  stake.  We  have  given  many  of  our 
noblest  souls  as  martyrs  to  the  cause  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty.  We  have  stained  the  snows  of  .  Al- 
pine peaks,  and  we  have  enriched  the  soil  in  Alpine 
valleys  with  Baptist  blood.  Our  martyrs  have  given 
their  testimonies  by  giving  their  lives  in  old  England, 
and  by  many  forms  of  suffering  in  New  England.  (^^^^^  ^- 
They  have  been  imprisoned  in  Virginia  and  in  other 
States,  and  evermore  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  has 
been  the  seed  of  the  church.    It  was  not  uncommon  in 

[  33  ] 


ZTbeBaptieta 


Virginia  when  Baptists  were  observing  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  that  efforts  were  made  not  only  to  throw 
ridicule  on  the  divine  ordinance,  but  to  drown  those 
who  were  thus  obedient  to  Christ.  We  do  not  forget 
the  brave  Ireland  and  the  Culpeper  jail  in  Virginia. 
His  preaching  through  the  bars  of  that  jail  resulted 
in  the  conversion  of  many  souls,  and  when  the  jail 
was  torn  down  a  Baptist  church  was  erected  on  its 
ruins. 

We  do  not  forget  the  persecutions  endured  by  John 
Clarke,  Obadiah  Holmes,  and  James  Crandall,  because 
of  their  advocacy  of  the  doctrine  of  religious  liberty 
and  their  persistent  denial  of  infant  baptism  as  scrip- 
tural. They  were  arrested  on  the  Lord's  Day,  July  2, 
1657,  at  the  house  of  William  Witter,  in  the  town  of 
Lynn,  Mass.  William  Witter  as  early  as  1643  ^^^^ 
renounced  infant  baptism.  When  Clarke  stood  at  the 
whipping-post,  almost  under  the  shadow  of  the  State 
House  in  Boston,  having  refused  to  pay  his  fine  of 
twenty  pounds,  we  are  told  that  some  kind-hearted 
person  interfered  and  bought  his  release  with  a  sum  of 
money ;  also  the  fine  of  five  pounds  was  paid  for  James 
Crandall,  and  he  was  set  free;  but  Obadiah  Holmes, 
a  man  of  broad  learning  and  invincible  will,  upon  the 
refusal  to  pay  his  fine  of  thirty  pounds,  was  so  cruelly 
whipped,  thirty  stripes  being  given  him,  that  for  weeks, 
according  to  Governor  Jenks,  he  was  unable  to  have 
rest  in  his  bed  except  upon  his  knees  and  elbows.     On 

[  34  ] 


Z\)c\v  principle,  pro9re00,  iproepect 

asking,  "What  law  of  God  or  men  he  (Clarke)  had 
broken  ?  "  Governor  Endicott  replied :  "  You  have  de- 
nied infant  baptism  and  deserve  death."  Henry  Duns- 
ter,  the  first  president  of  Harvard,  rejected  infant  bap- 
tism and  preached  against  it  at  Cambridge,  1653,  "  to 
the  great  alarm  of  the  whole  community."  He  was 
arraigned  for  refusing  to  have  his  child  baptized. 
His  opposition  to  infant  baptism  virtually  drove  him 
from  his  position  as  president  of  the  college.  Infant 
baptism  is  the  prolific  mother  of  many  of  the  Sa- 
tanic persecutions  which  have  dishonored  the  church 
through  the  ages.  Persecution  of  those  who  so  deny 
is  the  natural  result  of  the  belief  which  led  to  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism.  We  again  affirm  that  it  is 
a  practice  contrary  to  Scripture,  even  as  interpreted 
by  non-Baptist  scholars,  and  also  to  the  sound  reason 
of  all  intelligent  men  who  are  not  prejudiced  by  early 
training  and  one-sided  education. 

The  world  will  never  forget  Roger  Williams,  the 
founder  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  and  his  heroic 
avowal  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  When  the  first 
Continental  Congress  met,  in  1774,  the  first  petition 
was  for  religious  liberty,  presented  by  a  commit- 
tee from  Warren  Baptist  Association  of  Rhode  Is- 
land. As  a  result,  we  have  in  our  Constitution  the 
words,  "  No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as 
a  qualification  to  any  ofiice  or  public  trust  under  the 
United  States."     The  first  amendment,  guaranteeing 

L  [  35  ] 


^beffiaptiete 


religious  liberty,  was  also  the  work  of  Baptists.  John 
Locke  said,  "  The  Baptists  were  the  first  propounders 
of  absolute  liberty,  just  and  true  liberty,  equal  and  im- 
partial liberty."  Chief  Justice  Story,  speaking  of  the 
Rhode  Island  Baptists,  said,  "  In  the  code  of  laws  es- 
tablished by  them  in  Rhode  Island,  we  read  for  the 
first  time  since  Constantine  ascended  the  throne  of  the 
Caesars,  the  declaration  that  conscience  should  be  free, 
and  men  should  not  be  punished  for  worshiping  God  in 
the  way  they  were  persuaded  he  requires." 

It  is  a  well-known  historical  fact  that  the  charter 
obtained  by  Roger  Williams,  the  Baptist,  for  his  Rhode 
Island  colony,  was  the  first  legal  declaration  of  liberty 
of  conscience  ever  adopted  in  Europe  or  America. 
Bancroft  says  of  Roger  Williams :  "  He  was  the  first 
person  in  Christendom  to  assert  the  doctrine  of  liberty 
of  conscience  in  religion.  .  .  Freedom  of  conscience, 
unlimited  freedom  of  mind,  was  from  the  first  the 
trophy  of  the  Baptists."  John  Fiske,  referring  to  the 
views  of  Roger  Williams,  uses  these  words :  "  Such 
views  are  to-day  quite  generally  adopted  by  the  more 
civilized  portions  of  the  Protestant  world;  but  it  is 
needless  to  say  that  they  were  not  the  views  of  the 
seventeenth  century  in  Massachusetts  or  elsewhere." 
Leonard  Bacon  says  of  Baptist  churches :  "  It  has 
been  claimed  for  these  churches  that,  from  the  age  of 
the  Reformation,  they  have  been  always  foremost  and 
consistent  in  maintaining  the  truth  of  religious  liberty. 

[  36  ] 


Zbcix  principle,  progrees,  prospect 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  calling  in  question  the 
right  to  so  great  an  honor."  In  order  to  maintain  these 
doctrines  thousands  of  Baptists  were  hanged,  drawn, 
or  burned  at  the  stake.  They  have  often  given  such 
testimony  as  that  of  Trewoort,  the  Fleming,  who,  in 
England  in  1575,  said  of  Baptists:  "They  who  have 
the  only  true  gospel  doctrine  and  faith  will  persecute 
no  one,  but  will  themselves  be  persecuted."  In  the  case 
of  Baptists  it  is  certainly  true  that  the  blood  of  the 
martyrs  has  been  the  seed  of  the  church. 

Absolute  liberty  of  conscience  has  always  been  a 
distinctive  tenet  of  Baptists.  In  Switzerland,  when 
Zwingli,  following  the  example  of  Luther,  turned  from 
the  simple  faith  of  the  New  Testament  and  subjected 
the  church  to  the  stake,  the  Baptists  in  1527  published 
the  first  Confession  in  which  Christian  men  claimed 
absolute  freedom  for  themselves  and  granted  the  same 
to  all  others.  In  England,  in  16 14,  John  Smyth  gave 
the  first  English  Declaration  of  Faith  in  which  com- 
plete separation  of  Church  and  State  is  proclaimed  as 
the  law  of  Christ;  and  in  Rhode  Island,  in  the  year 
1636,  Roger  Williams,  as  has  already  been  suggested, 
instituted  the  first  government  on  earth  on  the  princi- 
ple of  absolute  freedom  of  belief  and  practice  not  in- 
consistent with  good  order  and  morals.  Baptists  were 
thus  the  first  to  announce  the  principle  of  religious 
liberty  in  Switzerland,  in  England,  and  in  America.  It 
is  difficult  for  us  to  realize  to-day  that  Hezekiah  Smith 

[  37  ] 


^beBaptiete 


was  "  warned  off  from  God's  earth  "  by  the  sheriff  of 
Haverhill,  Mass.,  and  that  thousands  more  men  and 
women,  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,  have  suf- 
fered various  forms  of  persecution,  both  in  old  Eng- 
land and  in  New  England.  Thank  God,  Baptists  have 
never  persecuted!  If  they  would  persecute,  they 
would  so  violate  one  of  their  chief  tenets  as  to  cease 
at  once  to  be  Baptists. 

The  Baptist  idea  is  that  baptism  does  not  make  a 
man  a  Christian;  baptism  is  administered  not  to  make 
persons  Christians,  but  because  they  already  are  Chris- 
tians. This  idea  makes  the  church  consist  not  of  citi- 
zens, but  only  of  a  separated  number  of  those  who  give 
evidence  of  divine  regeneration.  The  divorce  between 
Church  and  State  was  not  merely  a  lucky  thought  of 
certain  Baptist  philosophers ;  it  was  the  logical  outcome 
of  distinctive  Baptist  principles  drawn  from  the  New 
Testament. 

Personal  Access  to  God 

Baptists  have  ever  taught  that  the  individual  soul 
can  directly  approach  God  zmthout  the  intervention  of 
church  rites,  ceremonies,  or  priests.  This  is  the  dis- 
tinctive characteristic  of  true  Protestantism;  it  is  par 
excellence  the  teaching  of  Baptists.  They  have  ever 
taught  that  each  soul  has  the  right  of  personal  access 
to  God.  Baptists  hold  to  the  priesthood  of  the  in- 
dividual believer.     They  emphasize  his  sole   respon- 

[  38  ] 


Zbcix  principle,  iprosreae,  Iptoepcct 

sibility  to  Christ.  They  affirm  the  right  of  every  mem- 
ber to  interpret  Scripture  for  himself.  They  teach  the 
truth  that  the  church  consists  of  a  regenerated  mem- 
bership. This  truth,  rather  than  baptism,  is  a  funda- 
mental tenet  of  the  Baptist  faith.  Baptists  thus  admit 
to  church-membership  only  those  who  give  creditable 
evidence  of  being  truly  converted  and  baptized  accord- 
ing to  the  command  and  example  of  Christ. 

Baptist  Progress 

Our  growth  has  been  truly  wonderful.  When  Wash- 
ington was  inaugurated  the  population  of  the  thirteen 
States  which  composed  the  Union  was  3,750,000.  At 
that  time  the  whole  number  of  Baptists  was  50,000; 
then,  as  now,  the  larger  number  was  in  the  South. 
To-day  the  number  of  Baptists  is  5,266,369.  There 
was  a  net  gain  during  1909  of  151,192.  It  will  be 
most  instructive  to  show  the  proportion  of  Baptists  to 
the  population  at  different  periods  in  our  history  as  a 
nation  and  as  a  denomination:  In  1794  there  was  one 
Baptist  to  ninety-four  of  the  population.  In  1812  there 
was  one  Baptist  to  forty-two  of  the  population.  In 
1840  there  was  one  Baptist  to  thirty  of  the  population. 
In  1880  there  was  one  Baptist  to  twenty-three  of  the 
population.  In  1890  there  was  one  Baptist  to  twenty- 
one  of  the  population.  In  1900  there  was  one  Baptist 
to  nineteen  of  the  population.  In  1905  there  was  one 
Baptist  to  eighteen  of  the  population.     In  1908  there 

r  39  ] 


-/^^ 


Zl)c  Bapti0t6 


was  one  Baptist  to  seventeen  of  the  population.     In 
1910  there  was  one  Baptist  to  sixteen  of  the  population. 
The  following  table  also  is  instructive : 


m 

in 

> 

1/) 

Sk 

■XI 

tfl 

0. 

0 
0 

0 

z  0 

X 

z 
0 

S  w 

X 

g 

J  * 

X 

"  X 

0  0 

J  H 

Z  H 

52 

u 

in  u 

U  X 

<  S 

?5 

X 

< 

^i 

< 

n 

ri 

OS 

u 

n 

s 

a 
z 

Oh  Q 

z 

>   X 

X 

z 

0 
0 

1895 

27,090 

37,910 

205,857 

3,637,421 

22,916 

1,500,834 

S  80,285,034.00 

$11,672,691.00 

1905 

32*244 

45,927 

240,936 

4,600,799 

28,966 

2,015,672 

101,476,882.00 

16,823,588.00 

1908 

34,038 

47,409 

275,508 

4,969,524 

32,514 

2,241,606 

121,870,340.00 

22,268,892.00 

1909 

34,312 

48,302 

294,388 

5,"5,i77 

32,815 

2,386,000 

125,214,095,00 

22,813,864.00 

I9I0 

33,909 

49,045 

321,403 

5,266,369 

33.633 

2,498,354 

133,528,647.00 

24,122,911.35 

In  actual  gains  for  the  year  1909,  Baptists  stand  at 
the  head  of  the  list.  Seventeen  bodies  of  Methodists 
reported  a  gain  of  101,696.  The  Lutheran  Church  re- 
ported 65,172;  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  49,627. 
The  Disciples  of  Christ  record  an  increase  of  23,365. 
The  total  Presbyterian  Church,  including  twelve 
bodies,  is  a  little  less  than  2,000,000.  The  Lutherans 
were  formerly  fourth  on  the  Protestant  list,  but  they 
have  now  reached  the  third  place,  and  Presbyterians 
take  the  fourth  place.  The  order  is :  Methodist,  Bap- 
tist, Lutheran,  Presbyterian,  Disciples  of  Christ,  Epis- 
copal, Congregational,  United  Brethren,  and  Reformed 
Dutch.  The  figures  of  19 10  do  not  change  the  relative 
numerical  position  of  the  denominations. 

[  40  ] 


^tbeir  iprinciple,  proQrees,  Iproepect 

In  the  year  1870  the  population  of  the  United  States 
was,  in  round  figures,  38,000,000 ;  the  number  of  Bap- 
tists at  that  time  was  1,500,000.  The  population  of 
the  United  States  proper  to-day  is  approximately  95,- 
000,000,  and  the  total  membership  of  Baptist  churches, 
not  including  several  bodies  that  are  Baptists  but  are 
not  in  full  fellowship  with  us,  is  5,266,369.  Within  a 
period  of  forty  years — a  period  selected  simply  because 
it  chances  to  be  the  length  of  my  pastorate — the  popu- 
lation of  the  country  has  not  trebled  by  a  large  num- 
ber; and  during  this  same  period  the  membership 
of  our  Baptist  churches  has  trebled,  with  three- 
quarters  of  a  million  over.  Ours  is  probably  the 
most  rapidly  populating  country  on  the  globe;  and 
yet  the  membership  of  Baptist  churches  is  increas- 
ing much  more  rapidly  than  the  population  of  the 
country. 

This  growth  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  Baptists  re- 
ceive few  members  by  immigration.  From  England 
and  the  north  of  Ireland  the  Episcopal  Church  re- 
ceives a  very  considerable  number  year  by  year;  the 
same  remark  applies  to  Presbyterians  coming  from 
Scotland  and  the  north  of  Ireland.  The  Lutherans  re- 
ceive very  largely  from  Norway,  Sweden,  Denmark, 
and  Germany.  To  immigration  the  Lutheran  Church 
is  indebted  for  its  enormous  growth  of  late  years, 
giving  it  rank,  as  we  have  seen,  above  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  numbers.     The  Roman  Church  is  increased 

[  41  ] 


ZTbeBaptiete 


by  copious  streams  of  immigration  from  many  lands. 
If  these  streams  were  cut  off,  it  is  almost  certain  that 
the  Roman  Church  would  barely  hold  its  own  in  the 
United  States.  One  of  its  most  learned  priests  in  New 
York,  in  a  public  address  delivered  at  the  close  of  its 
recent  great  celebration,  lamented  that  in  the  crowds 
that  filled  the  streets  there  were  so  few  descendants  of 
the  Pilgrims  and  of  the  early  settlers  in  North  and 
South  Carolina  and  other  States  of  the  Union.  He 
expressed  his  sorrow  that  these  crowds  were  made  up 
of  foreigners  and  their  immediate  descendants,  and 
he  urged  the  people  of  his  church  to  put  forth  re- 
newed efforts  to  secure  converts.  In  making  these 
statements,  this  learned  and  eloquent  priest  uttered 
the  simple  truth.  One  writer  belonging  to  the 
Roman  Church,  a  writer  of  distinguished  name  in 
that  church,  put  the  loss  from  that  church  as  high 
as  17,000,000. 

Baptists  have  grown  more  during  the  last  ten  years 
than  either  the  Episcopal  Church  or  the  Congregational 
Church  has  grown  since  each  was  founded  in  America. 
These  statements  are  not  made  with  the  slightest  feel- 
ing of  unkindness  toward  these  denominations;  they 
are  made  by  me  simply  as  a  statistician,  after  study  of 
official  figures.  Baptist  growth  is  also  symmetrical ;  it 
does  not  run  to  extravagant  extremes  in  any  direction. 
We  have  grown  at  every  point  in  our  denominational 
life.      This    is    true    of   missions — State,    home,    and 

[42  ] 


Zbciv  principle,  progreee,  proepect 

foreign.  It  is  especially  marked  in  our  educational 
work,  and  it  is  conspicuously  seen  in  our  grand  total 
of  contributions,  rising  from  a  little  over  $11,000,000 
in  1905,  to  $24,122,911.35  in  1910. 

The  Baptist  Prospect 

The  prospect  is  bright  and  glorious.    Baptists  are  in 
line  with  the  foremost  thought  in  the  democracy  of  the 
hour.      Every  member  of   the   Baptist  denomination 
has  a  right  to  interpret  Christ's  law  for  himself,  and  to^,^ 
have  a  voice  in  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  his  church. 
Baptist  church  government  thus  agrees  with  republi- 
can civil  government.    We  have  already  seen  that  Bap- 
tists had  much  to  do  with  shaping  our  national  con-       /? 
stitution.     No  man  had  greater  influence  in  framing    x/ ^-^^-^^-^ 
our  fundamental  law  than  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  he   ^€-^-'' 
declared  that  "  IJ.e  considered  Baptist  church  govern- 
ment the  only  form  of  pure  democracy  which  then 
existed  in  the  world,"  and  that  he  "had  concluded,  '     " 

eight  or  ten  years  before  the  American  Revolution, 
that  it  would  be  the  best  plan  of  government  for  the 
American  colonies."  Baptists,  as  we  have  seen,  more 
than  any  other  denomination  of  Christians,  have  the 
honor  of  securing  the  first  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, which  declares  that  "  Congress  shall  make  no  law 
respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting 
the  free  exercise  thereof."  The  principle  of  democracy 
is  stirring  every  throne  in  Europe;  this  is  the  mean- 

[  43  ] 


^beBapti0t0 


ing  of  the  commotion  in  Russia,  in  Portugal,  in 
Spain,  and  even  in  India.  Baptists  are  the  finest  ex- 
ponents of  scriptural  democracy  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  This  is  a  day  of  devotion  to  liberty.  Baptists 
have  never  persecuted,  although  they  have  often  been 
persecuted.  We  have  seen  that  many  Puritans  had 
no  idea  of  true  religious  liberty;  they  fled  from  per- 
secution in  old  England  to  inflict  persecution  in  New 
England. 

Our  prospects  are  bright  educationally.  We  are 
reaching  out  as  never  before  on  the  lines  of  broad, 
varied,  and  consecrated  learning.  Our  academies,  col- 
leges, and  universities  multiply  in  numbers  and  increase 
in  power.  We  are  making  great  improvements  in  our 
forms  of  public  worship;  the  barrenness  of  the  past 
is  giving  place  to  an  ornate,  stately,  and  scriptural 
liturgy.  We  are  exalting  the  standards  of  political  life, 
and  urging  our  young  men  to  serve  God  by  serving 
their  country  as  statesmen.  Baptists  have  no  creed,  in 
the  technical  sense  of  that  term;  and  yet  it  remains 
true  that  there  is  no  denomination  in  the  United  States 
so  nearly  a  unit  in  faith  and  practice  as  the  Baptist. 
Cases  of  heresy,  such  as  recently  shook  the  Presby- 
terian and  Episcopal  Churches  from  center  to  circum- 
V  ^  ference,  notwithstanding  their  long  and  supposedly 
A    Qf^  strong  creeds,  are  an  impossibility  among  us.     Our 

^  0"^  polity  is  as  wise  practically  as  it  is  sound  scripturally. 

The  organization  of  the  Northern  Baptist  Convention 

[  44  ] 


OJ 


Ebeir  principle,  progteee,  prospect 

marks  an  era  in  our  history.  The  unification  of  all  our 
great  denominational  activities  will  now  be  assured  as 
never  before.  The  enthusiasm  of  our  people  is  now 
aroused  as  never  before.  Our  loyalty  to  our  Lord  as 
Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  was  never  more  marked 
than  it  is  to-day.  Glancing  over  our  long,  checkered, 
brilliant,  and  consecrated  history  we  see,  as  already 
suggested,  that  the  past  of  the  Baptist  denomination  is 
triumphant;  gazing  into  the  opening  years,  we  see  that 
her  future  is  resplendent. 

Summary 

To  sum  up,  I  would  say  that  a  fundamental  principle 
of  the  Baptists,  and  one  formerly  held  by  them  only, 
is  that  a  man's  salvation  depends  solely  on  personal 
faith  in  Christ  and  the  resultant  change  of  inward 
character,  and  not  on  baptism  and  other  church  ordi- 
nances. ■  As^a  result,  they  affirm  that  faith  must  be 
personal;  that  no  man  can  believe  for  another^no 
parent  for  a  child;  and  that,  therefore,  the  church  is 
not  made  up  of  '^  believers  and  their  children,"  except 
so  far  as  the  children  are  themselves  believers.  They 
hold  that  any  other  view  of  the  church  is  without  the 
authority  of  Scripture  or  common  sense.  They  ad- 
minister baptism  only  to  those  who  profess  faith  in 
Christ  and  give  evidence  in  daily  life  of  having  been 
converted.  They  administer  immersion,  the  baptism 
of  the  apostolic  church,  the  truly  catholic"  baptism,  and 

[  45  ] 


Zi;be3Bapti0t0 


when  this  is  impracticable  they  let  the  convert  die  with- 
out baptism. 

If  I  take  the  Bible  only  as  my  guide,  I  must  be  a 
Baptist;  if  I  discard  it  and  take  the  traditions  of  men, 
I  could  not  consistently  stop  until  I  had  reached  Rome. 
If  I  were  not  a  Baptist,  logically  I  should  have  to  be 
a  Romanist.  The  Romanists  are  perfectly  consistent, 
but  unscriptural ;  grant  their  premises  and  logically 
you  must  adopt  their  conclusions.  The  Baptists  are 
also  consistent  and  at  the  same  time  scriptural;  grant 
the  Baptist  premise  and  you  must  accept  the  Baptist 
conclusion.  But  the  Congregationalists,  the  Methodists, 
the  Presbyterians,  and  the  Episcopalians  are  not  con- 
sistent. Their  position  is  half-Romanist  and  half-Bap- 
tist. They  have  no  logical  standing-ground.  There 
are  but  two  consistent  and  logical  positions,  one  of 
which  is  held  by  the  Romanists  and  the  other  by  Bap- 
tists. Here,  on  the  word.of  .God,.  Baptists  stand;  they 
are  consistent  Protestants;  they  antedate  existing  de- 
nominational divisions ;  they  are  truly  apostolic.  Bap- 
tism is  the  catholic  and  aj)patolic-'  ordinance ;  rantism 
is  comparatively  recent  in  origin  and  sectional  in  prac- 
tice. Their  position  is  irnpregnable.  Historically, 
Baptists  are  not  Protestants ;  doctrinally,  they  are  the 
most  consistent  Protestants.  While  the  Bible  stands 
they  shall  stand,  and  the  "  word  of  our  God  shall  stand 
forever." 

If  there  is  ever  organic  unity,  it  will  begin  at  the 

[  46  ] 


,   ,   -  - 


^beir  principle,  iproisreee,  EJroapcct 

baptistery.  Every  denomination  in  Protestant  Chris- 
tendom, and  in  the  entire  Roman  and  Greek  Churches, 
can  agree  upon  baptism,  that  is  immersion,  as  taught 
by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  The  Greek  Church,  num- 
bering quite  one  hundred  milhon  adherents,  has  ever 
been  a  stout  witness  on  behalf  of  baptism.  The  Roman 
Church  accepts  it,  and  all  the  Protestant  churches  join 
hands  with  these  two  great  bodies.  On  no  substitute 
for  baptism,  such  as  rantism,  sprinkling,  or  affusion, 
pouring,  can  all  the  denominations  agree.  We  are  not 
now  arguing  a  point;  we  are  simply  stating  an  incon- 
trovertible fact.  Do  men  really  want  organic  Christian 
union?  Are  they  in  earnest  when  they  proclaim  this 
desire?  Are  they  willing  to  follow  Christ  into  the 
waters  of  baptism?  Are  they  willing  to  join  hands 
with  their  brethren  in  all  centuries  and  in  all  climes? 
Here  is  the  opportunity ;  here  is  the  truly  apostolic  and 
catholic  ordinance. 

It  is  said  that  when  Ptolemy  built  the  Pharos  he 
desired  to  make  his  own  name  immortal,  but  the  archi- 
tect deemed  it  unfair  that  the  king's  name  should  en- 
dure while  his  own  should  perish.  He  therefore  cut 
the  king's  name  in  plaster,  but  deep  in  the  imperishable 
granite  he  carved  his  own  name — Sostratus.  The 
waves  dashing  against  the  Pharos  destroyed  the  plaster. 
The  king's  name  disappeared,  but  the  name  of  Sos- 
tratus was  seen  so  long  as  the  structure  stood.  The 
name  of  Presbyterian,   Congregationalist,   Methodist, 

[  47  ] 


.*S^be3Sapti0t0 


or  Baptist,  however  much  we  love  it  now,  and  how- 
ever loyal  we  are  to  it  now,  is  one  day  to  give  place  to 
that  name  which  is  above  every  name.  Not  our  name, 
but  the  name  of  our  Lorci  and  Saviour,  our  Prophet, 
Priest,  and  King,  will  abide,  and  amid  the  light  of 
earth  and  the  increasing  glory  of  eternity  one  name 
shall  alone  be  read — Jesus  Christ. 


[  48  ] 


■^^"V  LIBRAE' 


-*      n 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


FEBll 


m^ 


m 


Ril-CefVED 


rCB    ^'67-9PlJl 


LOAN  DEPT. 


JULI7I3684  8 


^ECEfVEn 


JUL    g  '68  -2  PM 

LOAN  DCPT. 


LD21A-60w-7,'66 
(G4427sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


REC'D  LD 


m    7 '66 -10  PM 


LD  62A-50m-2,'64 
(E3494sl0)9412A 


General  Library 
University  of  Calif  on 
Berkeley 


